American Musclecar Evolution - How Chevrolet Made It To The Top And Stayed There
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- During the early days of the first Musclecar era, Chryslers we're known for exceptional engineering, strong engines and killer transmissions, but then as today, they were also known to be expensive and trouble prone, so most street car enthusiasts went Chevy, and the aftermarket followed right along.
Here's the main reason Mopars gave up that early ground to the Bow Tie crowd and why Chevy stays on top to this day.
MERCHANDISE:
Get Your UTG T-Shirts Here: uncletonysgara...
Get Your UTG Stickers Here: uncletonysgara...
OUR STORE: uncletonysgara...
*SOCIAL MEDIA:
Facebook: / uncletonysgarage1
I think the Diplomat was an M body, and it still used torsion bars. They were L shaped and the harmonic balancer was just a cvnthair away from touching.
Yes, I misspoke in the video. The F Body went to front mounted transverse T bars. What I was trying to convey was that they were no longer an issue under the car.
@@UncleTonysGarage i got what you meant. Just letting you know I'm paying attention, so watch your step next time mister.
@@UncleTonysGarage Love the way the F bodies handled. Pretty darn good for such an old technology
i had an '83 Cordoba for a bit. and it was a J platform with the horizontal torsion bars. I think all The F, M, J bodies had the same set-up. the Cordoba was a b-body with the longitudinal torsion bars until '79.
Opel also had a model called Diplomat with chevy 327 in it
Tony, as a lifelong Chrysler big block lover this all makes so much sense. It used to frustrate the heck out of me to see how much cheaper it was for others to build a Chevy and have access to everything in the aftermarket goodies. I had two 440s that flat out kicked butt with just about anything on the street, but at a huge cost compared to my Chevy buddies. This explains why. At 74 years old you answered my lifelong question. Thanks for sharing you vast experience and making it interesting.
460 Fords were available in 1968 at the peak of the Motor Head discussions.
I have a couple around that endured and they can run with points providing spark.
The Lincolns were selling cheap as the gas price went up.
I was pumping Gas in1969 so I am about your age.
I still enjoyed the low end power of FE blocks that Kicked Ferrari assets in 1967.
Loved my 440 marine engines, way better torque and reliability than the cheapo GM-mercruisers. HOWEVER the split rear main seals always leaked, and that sucks on a boat where its just a nuisance in a car.
This is awesome. I was a skeptic as you got going but you really made some great points and I’m glad you acknowledged the 10 year head start GM had with the Tri-fives. I build mostly fords and Chevy’s and am always annoyed by how ford changed things on the engine to accommodate the engine bay. Chevy designed their engine bays to accommodate the engine. So you end up with 50 years of parts compatibility on the Chevy side and you have to be within a few years and exact models on the ford side of tracking down accessories. Great video!!
Meh, it wasn't really a 10 year head start with the cars, just Chevy's small block engine. Ford got with the program when they introduced thier 3 year line of 57-58-59 cars, as well as Chrysler's new Forward look cars in 57. Ford & Chrysler also beat Chevy with modern & reliable big blocks, both introduced in 58. Chevy's 348/409 were not known for long term reliability.
So true. I’m a Ford guy and you are so right. The other thing is Chevy kept the same bell housing patterns for every engine from 55 on regardless of 6, sb,bb and on. Ford and Mopar had different bell housings making it more different/ expensive to change to a later engine.
And trust me we thank the Chevy engineers for that. It allowed me to install a 4l80e behind a 555 BBC in my 70 Nova😉
Now the ls it's like they set them selves up for selling gm performance parts by making all us gm guys lives so easy the bell housing differences are a huge reason I believe some beginning fomco or Mopar guys may have jumped ship
Chevy 6.2 / 6.5 diesels also have the same pattern.
As a GM guy I can confirm all you said.
Yeah, I’m a Ford guy too and I loved drag racing but with the same problems stated.
Very interesting how 1 or 2 relatively minor engineering decisions led to a massive loss of market share for Chrysler. Great presentation Tony!
i noticed this problematic thing years ago 2015
11 or 12... Ya missed a digit!
Also you didn't need to change a K member in a Chevrolet to go from straight 6 to small block and even to big block back then. They all shared transmissions and most shared motor mounts and evan radiator hoses.
Exactly.
I recently did a big block to small block swap on a 73 b-body and my choices were a different k-member or Schumacher for custom conversion engine mounts. I ended up making my own mounts but this is a perfect example of what the average guy would have been up against 50 years ago.
@@ColdSmokes you swapped a small block in place of a big block? Must have had to do with economics...?
@@williamstamper442
Sure did, I built a hot small block that is way quicker and more fun to drive than the smogged 440 that was in it..150 lbs less weight on the front end too..and it happens to get 40% better mileage than the big block 13-14 vs. 9-10 so win win I guess.
@@ColdSmokes these days, a stroker 360 isn't as hard to do as the old days of seeking out an early 360 to bore it out to 340 pistons for 380 cid. you can do 400+cid and with aluminum heads the weight difference makes up for hp. plus better handling and stopping. and if you know how to work the OEM fuel injection found in junkyards....
@@williamstamper442 🤪🤪 mod the 440
You are one of THE smartest thinking guys around. I'm 68 and have been around this game since I was old enough to ask my late Dad "why are you doing that to that thing Dad?" He too was a very smart fella. Thankyou for a top video, Tony.
Chrysler engine flaw, UT says, "let's examine the steering and suspension!" You are like a doctoral student defending a dissertation. Your insights are powerful and come with much merit, plus, your knowledge is universal and can be applied to most things. As always, thank you for sharing with us!
I agree never a snore fest with Tony very precise imput. I've learned a lot from his channel on carbs and points distributors ima 22 year old mechanic trying to learn more about my passion of fire breathing muscle cars
Absolutely love videos like this that take you on an engineering journey and explain why things are how they are. And who else than Uncle Tony delivers? Thank you good sir for sharing your knowledge on everything Mopar (and car engineering in general)!
As a Ford guy, I'm most jealous of Chevys Bellhousings and always figured that was one the biggest reasons they were so successful in the hotrod world.
Come on man you know 90% of all Fox body's have a GM engine in there😏. I'm just giving you a hard time man. We all like what we like. The first car I worked on as a child (around 8yrs old) was a Ford and the second was a 1962 Impala and after working on the Impala I knew what I liked. I can tell you I absolutely do not like to work on any Fords 1996 and newer but I have to as I turn wrenches for my day job. Just thought I'd share my story have a good night man.
@@eric63377 I always assumed those were actually Chevy guys who wanted something more lightweight than their GM offerings.
I definitely have no love for modern Ford (excluding the Godzilla) modular engines. They definitely feel like an engine of more cons than pros.
I think it was mostly just sheer volume. There was just a helluva lot more Chevies around than Fords or Mopars. This is one of the reasons I like Mopar, it's something different from what most everyone else has. That said, I like the 55-57 Chevies, and the early Mustangs are pretty cool.
@@clembob8004 Actually ford outsold chev in 1957...but your point is valid, damn chebbys everywhere! lol!
It is nice to be able to use a modern overdrive trans on an old big bock chevy.
small block chevy, that's why they are at the top, whether it's 350 or LS, i have seen toyota and honda vehicles with these engines
This is the kinda content I love about this channel, I appreciate what yall do, Uncle Tony and Uncle Kathy.
Right? Great content.
Not many creators making content like this. Most of what we see is "look what I just bought and did with money."
Why can’t uncle Kathy be Auntie Kathy ?
@@stujones3566 I ❤️ my mustang 🐎
Fun to drive.
Lol that’s funny my dad has a gay sister and albeit in my teens I’d call her uncle Pam had the stature of an all American defensive end lol but she’s the best and love her
@@konaboss83 ole strong ass uncle pam lol
I was always wondering why the bowtie has always been the go-to engine for performance mods; what was SO different about the Fords & Chryslers that they weren't seeing the same popularity? This video has certainly shed some light on the answer to that question; it has also made me wonder about what has been learned by Ford & Chrysler since that time and those lessons have been applied. Good video.
Chevy showed us what they learned over the decades when they gave us the LS. Chrysler learned too... The magnum series V8's (the 1990's version of the Chrysler LA smallblock) had rear sump oiling systems like Chevy always had. They're damn good engines too.
The shaft mounted rockers are definitely *not* a benefit in most applications. You had a video where you yourself describe the tuning issues you have with shaft mounted rockers. I believe it's called "The Engine Tuning Issue You Didn't Know You Had". So you get the higher RPM valve train capability but then it's killed by the issues you describe in that video with valvetrain geometry on decked heads/block. Chevy doesn't have that issue and they can spin plenty high.
Pontiac heritage.
It baffles me how even given the opportunity (adjustable rockers), people still can't get their hydraulic lifters set up correctly.
Big lift and heavy springs are hard on any set up. That's why Chevrolet high end after market lifters are individually shaft mounted.
@@MichiganRay Rocker arms, but yes I came here to say this. FE motors always had a problem with rocker shafts breaking off at the ends because they were unsupported from the factory, and high valve spring pressure would snap the shaft. Nowadays aftermarket rocker shaft assemblies have the end mount surrounding the shaft and it cures that problem.
shaft rockers are the best what the hell you taking about
Very informative video but I think Chevy's bell housing compatibility made a huge difference and should've been mentioned.
He did mention the Chevy bell housing.
I used a 8-10 quart oil pan for my small block 273 in a '65 Valiant back in the '70's. I believe it was made by Milodon and had the hole/tunnel for the steering link. Just need to add the extended oil pick-up and it was good to go.
273 oil pump is already in the rear. You needed a shorter pickup tube, not longer.
The 440 magnum was very well designed for a street performance engine. All I ever did was put on a stock HEMI 6 quart oil pan with the stock 440 pickup--the 440 pickup was the same depth as the hemi pickup. And a stock volume pump with a black oil pressure spring. All a high volume oil pump did was use horsepower to turn it. When I put headers, a Torker, a Crower 280 degree cam and a Holley 750 double pumper on one of my 440s, it made more power but it moved the power band up slightly so the car was much less "driveable" with a 4 speed.
Chevy also had the advantage of compatibility. You could change out a 350, 327, 307, or 283 with little to no problem.
With Fords I always ran into problems if it wasn’t an exact replacement. Never meddle with Mopar to much.
You are dreaming. Put an alternator on an engine with generator heads (they also need different valve covers) or switch from a long to short water pump and change all your pullies, then find the right starter and shim it up. Make sure you have the right flex plate. I once believed the chevy myth.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship But somehow we always managed to figure it out pretty easily
@@joew8440 Any make is easy if it is what you know best.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship nobody said that every single part was interchangeable. Always one person that has to crap on the parade
And being cheap.
I call BS on this one..I grew up in the 50s and got to drive and be around all the musclecars...I went to the Indianapolis nationals every year from 1961 to 70 and all the hot chryslers raced in or against none of them ever spun a bearing..There were a few exploded rods but not from anything to do with losing a bearing..We're talking 1000s of cars I was around like anyone else that grew up during that time..Now the chevy engines I went through a period I wouldn't even ride in them..I had a friend's 396 in his 66 chevelle SS let go and threw piston and rod material almost through the firewall where I was sitting on the passenger side...one of many many Chevrolet engines I seen blow.They may have had a better oiling setup but it certainly didn't help them stay togeather.
As a long time Mopar guy I had never considered this!
A very well thought out point of view.
Another point is Chevrolet anything is so very interchangeable, just easier to build a Chevy on a budget and that's how just about everyone starts out.
What is the winter Ford engine ?
For 50 years and engine displacements from 265 to 400 cubic inches parts and accessories interchanged. It took a whole lot less parts in the aftermarket to build just about anything you wanted from a small block Chevy.
262-400 actually.
One thing I've always run into is: Ford guys hate Chevy, Chevy guys hate Ford, but when you mention Mopar, they both say they're fast.
That's a good analogy. They certainly made some legends of the street.
It's Fords engineering is trash and Ford guys don't like GM because they know they are way better.
Never hear a Chevy and Ford guys agree Mopar was faster lol
@@joshfeister6566 I didn't say they said it was faster...
mopar guys remembering Henry screwing over dodge bothers and sue-happy aka some of us don't like ford's and so-so on Chevy's personally drant was a D to henry , my personal ride's pre-1990 chevy trucks 👍mopar car's sorry but the 50's-90's D100 has questionable styling outside and a vary bland interior
both grandparents were ford fan boys but dad's side flipped to chevy ( started off as a 1948 and 51 kaiser and next Plymouth/FCA then ford after the 1950's ) and stayed that way to his 90's/deathbed i guess the ford dealership rubbed him wrong some how in the 80's/90's as i remember a 1993~ crown Victoria siting in the driveway as a tottaler/kid and a 1998 caddy replacement after that and a 2002 caddy ect basically after 2003 he got a new car every year or 2 last car he got was a buick le cross 2006~*
This was very interesting! To me, it was just that Chevrolet was the best selling, most well known brand - so since so many people owned them, it translated over into racing as well. But, apparently there was more to it than just that.
And cheap.
Good thing Dodge trucks are rear sump.
Interesting theory but GM sold close to 45% of all the vehicles on the road in the 60s so there were just simply more of them. GM became the main focus for after market performance parts during this era. Swapping out a SB for a BB was quick and easy also and so many interchangeable parts between engine sizes and years. GM showrooms displaying Corvettes and Camaros definitely caught the attention of many young guys.
You have to remember, in the 60s, there were no generic "GM" engines. Each division had its own engine. Even when displacements were the same. Try putting a Buick 350 head on a Chevy 350 Block. You will see that it can't be done.
@@michaelbenardo5695 But if you wanted to swap in a cheaper performance engine it wasn't hard to put a 350 Chevy in a Buick, Olds or Pontiac. Change the mounts, bellhousing and you're off to the races. Chevy cornered the market on horsepower/dollar, especially after their engines found their way into other GM makes.
@@unicornsteaks6769for older cars you would be making custom engine mounts to do that. And in many cases swapping transmissions too.
Great video. Chevy also had unbelievable interchangeability of parts. You could swap the heads etc from any small block. Over the counter parts at the dealer. A big block fit nicely in a tri-5. Bell housing bolt patterns all matched. Chevy had it going on for the diy folks.
Big block did not fit headers hit steering box
@@rustedratchetgarage6788 There was a fix I just don’t remember. Back in the day not everyone ran headers. Here east coast of Nc they rusted out too quick
All big block Mopar heads swap between the two deck heights. You need to have the right intake manifold.
And don't forget the SBC had the holes for motor mounts that they started with back in '55.
Chevy was cheap and made for those with no brains.
I am a Chevy guy from August 1969 till today. My friends and I always thought of the Mopar guy's as different and all this time it was the oil pans, I'll be danged. Good video, thanks.
Hi Mike, My brother and I grew up as Mopar guys and his friends were all Chevy and Ford lads, and they both thought of as different, BUT we all loads of fun working on our wrecks. I moved on to SAABs now (talk about wrecks) but i still have a great love of those days, Mopars, Chevy & Fords all welcome.
@@patrickmonaghan8555 yes WE did, the best part was $0.35 a gallon real high octane gas! In addition, maybe a little street racing, just maybe.
Tony, I absolutely love these historical perspective videos. Keep it up.
The hot Chrysler big blocks that I was seeing back in the 60's (my time) were not reliable and as you pointed out, it was almost always a bottom end bearing. And you could take the water pump off a 65 Chevy dump truck at the salvage yard & put it on your 55 283 with minor heater hose routing.
Waterpumps interchange on all B-RB Chrysler's 58-78. Even in dump trucks.......
Chevy gets all the love but Mopar built one of the best small block engines ever the 340 even stock there mean little engines and with a bit of work they become monsters!
those are good motors...unless they ran against a ford cleveland ...voted by motor trends best small block muscle car engine of all time ..[ or another major car magazine ] cant remember ...richard holdener wrote and worked for the major magazine who wrote that story
66 350hp 327 nova. Gears and good driver pretty hard to beat. 340 cars were never a worry in one of those
@@justinadams1360 sounds good..but so does the ford boss 351 @ 383ish h.p.
@@justinadams1360 And those Chevy II's had front sump oil pans. Maybe not ideal, but it worked.
Patrick Bedard used to write for Car and Driver back in the 70s. Before that, he was a Mopar engineer. He said they copied the Chevy fuelie heads for the 340.
What i hated about the dodge was you just couldn’t take a 6 cylinder out of a car and change it out with a 8 cylinder with out changing k frame or welding in new motor mounts. With chevy the mounts were bolted in and could accept any engine they made.
Yes, oil pickup placement is a huge issue but what made Chevrolet superior even to it's GM stablemates, is MAD INTERCHANGEABILITY!!!..... Nova era sixes and all v-8s would bolt up to the same mounts at the same distance from the bell housing face... same mounting circle for all bell housings same flywheel bolt circle on all with choice of only two sizes of flywheel/starter combos that could also be used interchangeably.....This program began in 1955 and even included the 348/409s in the interchangeability family.....Ford and Chrysler never really took this interchangeability program to heart and it made high performance swapping much more problematic and expensive while it took very little research and searching, and ultimately less expense to acquire and maintain a whole garage full of Chevrolet spares......
Thank you for specifying Nova era 6 cyls 👍.
To be fair, Chrysler's Old Hemi bell pattern was carried onto A engines, then LA engines, then to the 4.7, and even the modern hemis. That's just as long as Chevy's bellhousing, maybe even a few years longer. Unfortunately Chrysler's big block had to change that pattern a little bit to accommodate the deep skirted block.
Duntov cams and solid lifters over the GM counter for less than $25 in 1965 helped us poor boys out.
I blame Exner, I mean he gets blamed for everything else
Someone who answers questions that nobody is asking.... that's a philosopher!! LOL. Great video and thank you for sharing. 👍
Also, chevy's are easier to work on. Their engineers did not change much over the years. Also, pretty much any car in that time period , up until front wheel drive cars were common, you could drop a 350 in any GM car and it would drop right in. The motor mount location was pretty much the same in all the cars.
Yep, we used to swap heads and cam, even an engine and still made it to the bar by midnight......😋
Chevy puts everything in a hard to reach place just because ford put it in a sensible location. The distributors being in the rear of the engine being a good example.
Try installing a starter on a 5.4 Expedition…and reassess that statement.
@@gorybonghit3211 what's hard to reach on a older chevy.absolutly nothing
@@jedibusiness789 we dont talk about fords past 97. lol
Love the unblinkered and honest approach of this channel. I love mopars but they have their flaws, all cars do.
At 16 I could not figure out why I spun bearings in my 67 Fairlane. It was a bored 390, cam, headers and good heads. Was a brand new bottom end with perfect clearances. Guess it accelerated fast enough to do the oil starvation thing.
Did you have pan baffles
Nicely done! You presented a well thought out analysis. Being a MOPAR guy, myself, I was a minority in my home town when it came to hot cars; everyone had a 67-69 small block Camaro. I love MOPAR engineering, but you're right, the aftermarket support is a lot less than for the Chevy small block.
Chevys are swap friendly too. Same bell housing for 6, small block, big block v8s. Chrysler requires separate trans for each engine family.
Chevy 6 cyls prior to Turbothrift had a different bellhousing
I've worked on many many many different manufacturers vehicles over the years... I've been hot rodding my whole life. GM's vehicles in my experience and opinion have always been much easier to work on and modify. Even now, I rebuilt the top end on my Dad's 2004 f150 and did a complete timing set on its 5.4L and it was a pain in the rear. I have completely built multiple 2003 - 2010 GM vehicles and they have all been relatively easy to work on and modify. Even the ends of the bolts on GM cars and trucks are rounded to make them easier to start. Not to mention the aftermarket and even factory parts availability.
I don't think anything uncle talks about relates to modern cars. The animals he plays with are worlds away from modern engines. If you go back to his era most of what you can say about the big 3s engines of today don't apply. For instance change a distributor on a 318 and you will wonder why everyone didn't use a similar setup. The timing gear stays in the block and you are either on or 180 out on the timing. You can swap a dizzy in like 3 minutes without even hitting tdc. That era had positives and negatives for every manufacturer but complex to work on didn't describe any of them.
This is an excellent video. Tony makes me think about oil pan sumps. What wins on the weekend, doesn't always win in the showrooms. What wins on the balance sheets wins. That's why Tesla currently is ahead in electric vehicles, but maybe some other company will build an EV that is less costly to build and service and does what customers want.
Chrysler sales were slightly ahead of Ford when they released the 331 Hemi in 1951. I think the Chrysler hemi was a fine motor, but Buick's relatively crude nailhead cost less to build and it did what customers of big cars wanted it to do. Chrysler should have never built the DeSoto and Dodge hemis, they should have created a cheaper to build motor like the small block Chevy v8, possible another larger one based on the 331 for the DeSoto. Buiding the three hemis in the '50s was a bad idea and probably caused a loss of market share. The poly v8 probably saved Plymouth, but it was still too costly and too heavy.
A lot of wisdom in this video, Tony... As a long-time Mopar fan and owner, I always hated having to work around the steering and tight K-members. However those front sumps were wonderful for road racing, where frequent hard braking in a Chevy would cause the same problem for them. The A-bodies like Valiants and Barracudas did well in SCCA events. And yes, the Ford engine compartments were a complete nightmare. I'm not sure what they were thinking back then...
You nailed it , long time ago hot rod guys found out it was easier to put a SBC in a ford than to put a later ford into a ford. all about the oil pan location. Another great episode
I remember drag racing a hemi in the 80's and the old guy that helped me build the car was obsessed with the oil pan and engine compartment. He reconfigured the whole thing. He never said why but the car lasted pass after pass with no issues. I asked him one time shouldn't we spend more time on the rest of the engine and his response was that it was already built to do the job we just need to make sure it comes to work every day.
I can't tell you how many of those "K" frames I replaced after they were damaged in accidents. You just couldn't straighten them like a "normal" car frame at the time. They were too strong and had complex geometry, plus it took a real jolt to bend them. Insurance adjusters hated them because you couldn't fix them on the cheap but in 99% of the cases you had to replace the K frame with a new one. Got to the point I could single handedly change one in less than 5 hours as I recall. Brought the vehicle in first thing in the morning and by lunch it was being buttoned up. Still needed a front end alignment & minor torsion bar adjustment but easy peasy. The oil pan situation made it a terrible street rod setup but for frame repairs it was the cat's meow! My only complaint with them was rusty alignment cams and the ridiculous over/under (inner/outer) cam set up in the aprons. Ohhh ... dem was da days!!!
As a poor kid in rural Maine I gravitated towards GM because of the availability of parts and interchangeability. Replacing a 6 cylinder with any small block GM is no problem. My buddy pulled his slant out of his pickup and installed a 318. Lets just say his didn’t go so easily
You forgot Chevy is cheap too.
You can't replace the Chevy 6 cyl with "any GM small block", it has to be a Chevy engine. Buick, Olds, or Pontiac aren't bolting up........
I grew up with a Chevy dad - actually, he liked Pontiac as well (yes, I know they're both GM but the power plants weren't necessarily the same lol) - it's obviously understandable that I would be a little partial to Chevy but I do recognize greatness when I see and/or experience it. I like many models across all of the brands but I must say as a career mechanic that my least favorite to work on are Ford! Granted, I am speaking on more modern Fords... Anyhow, I don't currently own any hot rods (can't afford it) but I do own a 2nd gen Ram 4x4 with the 5.2 Magnum and I love it, even though it averages about 9 mpg and the dash is more brittle than candy glass on a Hollywood set 🤣. Okay, I'm done rambling. Awesome presentation, sir.
Yup-rear sump let the SB Chevy replace all those flatheads. Then we stepped up to 55-57s. It became generational. Interchangeability was so convenient, easy. Let a lot of shade-tree boys look like mechanical geniuses. Great info on the rear steer. I love Chevys but have always had a ton of respect for Mopar engines. Well-done video.
you heard it here folks. 11:47 "the tri 5 chevy was the perfect car" and we all know UTG knows everything!
Dan..don't scrub Ur Ears on the door frame leaving the garage tonite. With that said, U do great work. Hope all is well with You and Yours. 🇨🇦
Excellent video!.Love my BB 56 Chev. 2 dr. sedan. Soft spot for Mopar though, first car was a 69 FB Barracuda Formula S 340 4sp. Fellow Canadian, love your channel eh!!!!
@@larrysandberg2786spoilt w a340 4spd off the bat
I've always preferred MOPAR steering to GM. It was always more responsive & easier to steer. My '73 Newport (383E 2bbl) was easier to steer than my '70 Monte Carlo (350+) and handled better. The Newport had 78/78 tires on it, the Monte had 70/60 tires on it. The Monte did better donuts, though.
Finally done a video for us Chevy guys, just kidding love your stuff man I really appreciate the time, effort and work y'all put into your content, you and Kathy are awesome people
Thanks for explaining this. I had a friend with a 66 Satellite with a 440 and a heavy foot and he kept spinning bearings. I also had a 383 that did the same thing.
I used to run big block mopars on the streets and I lost a few of them to spun bearings. I had pan baffles in them too.
Agreed. I remember as a kid when building model cars, I always wondered why the mopar kits always had the oil pan on backwards. Even then it didn't make sense to me.
Once the concept you presented took place, it was all over. To this day, when you see an article or an ad about a great part you know you can get it for your Chevy. If they by some chance make it for a Mopar or Ford it is usually twice the price of the Chevy version. As a teenage hot rodder in the 80's, that was all it took to make me a Chevy guy. I still love those Mopars though!
More mass production makes more cheap price
Chevy starters are also bolt easy to the block with just two bolts in the vertical axis, not to the bell housing like Ferds and Dodgers! This makes it real easy to start the engine out of the car, sitting on a tire, in the junk yard, or in your back yard hanging from a great old FLorida oak tree!
try changing a starter on a V-8 mopar engine------ terrible!!!!!!. the slant 6 engines were great to change out, raise the hood , disconnect the wires, and two bolts --- it is in your hands!!!!.
Chevy had aliment problem. Ford never. Holding that heavy starter up in a Chevy is a pain. Easy on a Ford.
@@jesse75 I aways found the Ford easy mainly because only one wire to the starter GM had a multiply wires to deal with and sometimes needed shims.
@@internalcombustion641 original poster isn't too bright.
Want to see something funny. Watch the terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, put on a starter on that Ford truck and see him tighten it up like a Chevy with the torque wrench.
You better go take another look , Chevy didn't start drilling and tapping the blocks for the starter until around 1959 or so .
Interchangeability of parts across decades making parts easy to find everywhere and affordable to the regular guy on a budget . Aftermarket support helped tremendously. Same bellhousing pattern was retained the entire production run..carried over even to today. The real reason the LS is popular. You can bolt a TH350 transmission from 50 years ago on one if you want.
That and GM didnt change their bellhousing bolt pattern every new block casting. Love my MOPAR but that modular aspect Chevy has is respectable.
50 years of buying and hammering on high-performance Mopars and have yet to have any lower-end problems. You would think that if this guy were right, the Chrysler Corporation would have been driven out of business just by warranty claims in the 60s, and 70s. This guy and Scotty Kilmer should make videos together.
UT clarified in the next video about Pontiacs that the oil sump issue was only when you started upping the power/rpms and got into the low 12/high 11 range. I am like you, never had any problems either, and the ones that did have problems were the idiots who never kept their Mopars maintained. 2 quarts low on oil with no regular oil changes will get you some spun main bearings!
Even UT loves GMs deep down inside that cold Chrysler heart ❤️
Sounds like a Hank Williams song
@William Stamper yeah it does lol 😆
😂
My dad was a Ford man when I was a little boy in the 60 s. When he started building engines for the boys drag race and other races. Chevrolet is the way to go 40 years later he still holds to it
What I love about the Small Block Chevy - Is that it was the perfect working man's engine, because it was designed in a no-frills application to go in everything from secretary cars to trucks and everything in between and there were thinking it would get them through the next 10 - 15 years to the next redesign and it's against ALL FRIGGIN ODDS that it's basically lasted until today!!
its still going strong and i still dont care about doing an LS swap
NO FRILLS = K.I.S.S.
I replaced my small block that was in my Vette with the proper big block. I researched the small block I'd numbers and found out it was for a combine application. Imagine that.
@@dannelson2171 LOl, are you sure it wasnt a warranty replacement block by any chance? maybe they just used what they had sitting around at the factory at the time lol
I think another reason the Chevys were more popular than the Chryslers is because so many different engine parts were interchangeable.
Ford Windsors also suffered from no good flowing heads until around 1990 (Probably for the same reasons Tony said for Chrysler)
Today, there are options that make it great, but back in the day people had to make Clevors (Cleveland head on Windsor block) in order to get a reasonable head on it.
Just another maddening example of why Fords have never been the engines of choice. The 351W has massive crankshaft journals and pretty good main webbing, yet they put shit heads on them. They have nice long rods too. Meanwhile, while the Cleveland does have a pretty decent bottom end, I still prefer the Windsor (obviously a lot of Ford guys do too) so they put the REALLY good flowing Cleveland heads on what I think is the better bottom end. But that's not even the point here... Why couldn't Ford have just done that from the beginning? The DID do it with the Boss 302, so why design an entirely different engine when they could have just designed good heads for the good engine they already had? I'll never understand the Ford engineers from that era.
I really like your analysis here. Good information I didn't know as a GM guy. I work on modern Mopars professionally but never worked on their old stuff
Economies of scale also factor in. Chevrolet kept things the same forever and produced millions of them. Making one aftermarket part that will sell those numbers becomes an attractive proposition. Ford made some nice stuff--but 8 different versions of everything. Think of the 427-428-429 thing as an example.
Plus the fact the trans werent interchangeable with all the engines, chrysler had a ring gear on the torque converter instead of a normal flex plate, ford had tiny exhaust ports and bubblegum bottom ends the list goes on
@@brucef5892 yet fords and bob glidden seemed to win many races and jon kaase also ...
Ford couldn't even make the same engine in 2 different factorys....the 351 from Cleveland was not the same as the 351 from Windsor.
They even had different heads for 2 barrel carbs and 4 barrel carbs
@@chriswhite2151 wrong..ford [ DIDNT ] make those 2 different motors in the same plant ..of coarse they will have different locations for those 2 motors...ford made engines in many different plants..is this new to you??,,did you just find this out??...still doesnt take away from my first comment ...does it???
@@chriswhite2151 you's chevy guys are funny..or are you a mopar guy?..either way ...yes indeed ford made different heads for the 2 and 4 bbl clevelends..in fact..they acutally made more then that ...i bet that just blew your socks off....here is a secret us ford guys dont like to talk about in public,,,but ford also made a few different intakes...and even 2,,and 4 bbl intakes as well
Thanks for that, Uncle Tony. The only car I hot-rodded was my first car, a 1970 340 Dart Swinger. The headers were definitely a bear to put in. All I did to it was headers, Edelbrock LD-340 intake and a 750 cfm AFB. Had I put a hot cam, low rear gears, and slicks on it, I might have had problems with the front sump. But I still beat a lot of Camaros and Mustangs. I especially enjoyed your explanation of why the first Mopar funny cars had the front wheels extended so far forward. Genius! I have read stories about the early funny cars since the mid 70's. No one else ever explained it as a way to move the sump. They always said it was to extend the wheelbase so as to try to minimize the wheelies. You're always a treasure of information. Thanks!
Plus, as you mentioned before, in the junkyard, that the ford's also had the front suspension springs on top of the upper control arms, which limited the exhaust manifold clearances.
If I am correct, Ferd only had the springs on top of the upper control arm for a few years. (I own one and hate it) Used in many cars in the early/mid 60s and the all squeaked like crazy. Super hard to check your ball joints. Bad idea. I know from experience.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship from about 62 to 73, i think. then Mustang II went with the new design used on street rods and the Fox went with MacPherson struts.
Excellent Tony, and I totally agree. I was in Engineering School in the late 60's and owned a Fabrication/Collision/HotRod shop (small aircraft included) I raced highly modified MoPars with success but used Chevy for street fun. We need major surgery to get good headers on street MoPars. One of my professors called out the similarities of the big MoPar block with Ford and GM too.
Great stuff as always simple things we overlook you just turned on the lights why didn't I think about it that way 😀 Great stuff Tony GODSPEED
You’re right. I’m a GM guy, cause a Camaro was my first car. I’ve built a couple of Ford engines, and thought that they could make a bunch of power. I did notice that the oiling system needed a bunch of improvements, but the basics of the block and heads, had a bunch of potential. I haven’t worked on any Chrysler engines, but I understand how potent they can be. Now that I’ve seen your video, I can clearly see the shortcomings of the engine to chassis design. I thought it was pretty interesting
Chrysler had the annoying habit of using different "K" members for 6 cyl, smallblock and big block vehicles, which made engine swaps more difficult. I remember having to modify engine mounts even when we swapped in a 360 for a 318
Ford also used steering linkage behind the crossmember as Mopars did until introduction of the Fox body in 1979, they used a strange oil pan with two sumps and two drain plugs.
The small block and big block use the same k frame.
@@drippinglass Not the frame stands welded to it.
Same with thier full-size Panther platform introduced in 79.
When I was a younger man and started messing with cars in the 70's I went with Chevy and Pontiac because it just seemed simpler to work on, modify and make power, add to that the fact that it also cost less, seemed like an easy decision. Most of my friends who went with other brands told me while sneering that my prized engines were also in Motor Homes. To which I replied, "exactly."
I don't think they meant it as a compliment.
I have always admired all high performance cars, even new ones still. They all get the heart rate up in a good way.
I almost bought a new Ford truck but am so glad I didn't. The new GMC truck seems so difficult to work on but compared to the new Ford's... our shop mechanic did a new Chevy motor in 3 days but it took him 3 weeks doing a newer Ford 3/4 ton. We're a semi shop that also has to work on pilot trucks so no lift which makes working on the Fords a headache (or so they say).
The Mopar 440 c.i. can also be found in motor homes/RV's.
@@nykrindfw1743& 460 fords too
Good Show, Tony. I lost an excellent 340 partially due to the oil sump placement in 1973. I had an awesome Orange 340 Duster 4 speed that went like crazy. I made the mistake of letting a hobby mechanic freshen up the valves, although it burned no oil and the compression was 150 all across. He threw the valves in a pile and went to work. When I put the heads back on it sucked oil through the guides at the rate of one quart every 200 miles. I was Not happy. On holidays within a few days we went camping. My wife was driving up a steep hill to a campsite in Nevada and she said it seems like we're losing power. I quickly leaned over and saw the oil pressure gauge at zero, so we coasted back down the hill where I added 2 quarts. Thankfully the oil pressure came back but at a reduced level. We drove that tough little fighter all the way back to the Cold Lake, Alberta Air Force Base, 1400 miles away, where I was an aircraft tech. No bearings were turned but they were pretty well burned out. Cost me lots for a full rebuild but it went better than ever until some envious sob poured sand into the oil filler cap. That finished it for good, poor girl. I still admire that tough and feisty 340! It was a real marvel of Chrysler engineering. God Bless you and God Bless America. RS, Maj Ret, Alberta, Canada.
I remember as a kid ia asked an old timer about why all the old streetrods used chevy engines. It was exactly as you say, the rear sump oil pan. I work with friends for years on circle track cars and they were doe hard blue oval fans. All of the engines were converted to rear sump but were mounded further rearward than stock so steering clearance wasnt an issue.
Great explanation. As an old guy who grew up in the heyday of muscle cars (1960's) I never thought about the differences in the oil pans/pickups.
I love all of the big four American V8's but I always liked the five head bolts per cylinder in the small block chevy.
Big block mopar also has 5 bolts per cylinder
The Chrysler oiling problems make total sense to me now Tony, thanks
Good explanation Tony. As usual. I like 351 Ford Windsors. Same thing.
I've seen people convert the Mopar to front steer with a steering rack one of those tubular k members are probably nice as well. Might make a good case for softening the bypass spring in your oil pump. Instead of shimming them up. Those big high pressures oil pumps can drain the sump pretty fast.
Uncle Tony, you are mostly correct. But, probably the main reason Chevys were more successful in the hot rodding world was because of Zora. He was the driving force to make Chevrolet engines more accessible to the aftermarket for the development of performance parts.
I was a Ford lover until I owned a Chevy that was a 64 with a 283 small block short bed Fleet side! I was a Chevy fan sense! and on the Mopar good engine shity bodies and electrical systems. long live the Chevy small block!
Fantastic historical segment Tone. That was very educational bro. Good stuff.
Im an AMC guy myself and other day I saw that one old commercial here in youtube from Chrysler and there was a comparison between Valiant And Rambler American, it was fun and all but what really got me giggles was that when it was time to compare the front suspensions "In out Valiant its got the torsion bars meanwhile American still got those old coil springs.." That line totally got me LOL
This is probably the best video that you have ever done! With all the info that you have just bestowed upon us, would it be better to take a Chevy and drop a 440 in it with a rear sump oil pan? And 727 torqueflite trans in it?
A buddy of mine has a lifted 66 El Camino sitting on a Dodge truck chassis with a 440 and a 727. It’s pretty cool but would be awful in terms of resale value. I never really care about the resale when I buy, mostly because I shouldn’t have to sell…
I always used Chrysler big blocks in my GM demo derby cars. I just used truck rear sump pans and pickup tubes.
Yes, also, the small Chevy V-8 breathed well, ran well, and sounded really good when it was screaming. The sound it made was a major (overlooked) factor in its popularity.
Besides the starter, a Chrysler small block sounds exactly the same.
Fords sound different because of thier firing order.
@@johneckert1365 I had an Olds with the Rocket 350. Friend had a Nova with the Chevy 350. Olds ran the same firing order as a Ford.
@@Rocketsong I've always liked the small block (short-deck) Olds engines
Thanks, Tony, for explaining one aspect of the cultures of the big three and how set each of them on a separate path. I never understood the huge allegiance folks had to whichever was their favorite; now I am starting to see. And you are right about Fords: Shock towers suck! Thankfully I like inline engines so I have some room to work.
I have no idea on the exact production numbers but for every street hemi there seemed to be 10 or 15 BBC around back in the day. The Corvette certainly added something to Chevy's performance image. Go to any swap meet or used parts listings and Chevy HP parts easily out number other brands. Chevy is just a cheaper and easier route to successful racing other than fuel classes.
Pettingellhammer total street hemi production for all years was between 9 & 10 thousand cars. I forget the exact number
I'd go further to add GM frames, all fit any GM motor from straight 6 to big blocks with simple motor mount changes. Always hated working on my buddies Mopars because we had to scrounge salvage yards for the right K Frame. Then all the work swapping K frames.
Meh, not completely true until "standardization" came to be in GM. That started in 1968 with mid-size cars, and 1971 with full-size.
@johneckert1365 Sooooo (34 years) 1968 to 2002 GM had the easiest motor swap/interchange on the planet. And Mopar NEVER did. But let's discard that as a non issue. My 1986 Monte Carlo SS has had a 1970 BBC in it since 1987. My 70 straight 6 Nova has a 1965 396 in it. 1992 Silverado has a 1996 Vortec motor swapped in 1996. For 34 Years 1955 to 2002 motors just dropped into any GM product, including late models on showroom floors.
@BBBILLY86 WRONG again. Not "any GM vehicle". Up until 1968 with mid-size and 1971 with full-size, GM's car divisions were different. You could not just bolt in a Chevy engine in an Olds, Pontiac, or Buick. They were all unique. Matching frames with all the motor mount holes didn't happen until standardization started. When John DeLorean was still with GM he fought standardization very hard, but eventually lost (and lost his job).
@BBBILLY86 If you just want to stick with 1968-2002. Chrysler was building thier LA 318 that entire time, and it bolts right in to similar vehicles. I have a 68 Plymouth Fury here at my yard with a 2bbl 318, and it will bolt right into a 2002 Dodge Ram.
As a lifelong Chevy guy, this was a fascinating video. I have always cited other good things about Chevy's design but did not consider this one. Great Video!
My pops told me that Smokey Yunick was once quoted as saying that if he could do it all again, he'd have gone with MOPAR.
Having seen his awesome reverse flow cooling solution on a SBC, I'd love to see his solution to Chrysler's front sump problem. Hell, maybe he did come up with something.
Nope. He said furd. He knew WAY better than to deal with Mopar garbage.
AMC's had many of the same issues with oiling under acceleration forces. We would always run an extra quart of oil because there was plenty of room for it with the typical amc v8 pan and it helped keep the pick up covered. Many fords of the 60's were based on the falcon and just like the valiant they weren't ever really meant to have a v8. Always interesting thanks.
Also, the AMC oil pan had the sump at the Back where it should be.
My 360 dodge has a rear sump oiling system.
Truck? Van?
@@wayne8498 Van.
Trucks & vans were all rear sump
I think keeping the 727 style trans from 59 as an interchangeable bell housing for the aluminum 727 would have been a big move vs having 3 separate castings that locked the transmission to specific engines. Hindsight…
Looking back, there's no reason why the slant 6 couldn't have used the A-LA bellhousing. The B-RB really couldn't have though because of the deep skirts.
Dang, I never thought about this. My Dad always kept a Dodge in the garage for circle track and a Chevy for the straight line. I always wondered why.
#HalfAssRatrods, so what your saying is GM is superior....lol!
I always assumed it was because they didn't use gaskets and after a few years they would start leaking and run low on oil. Didn't even consider it was a starvation issue because of the sump. Learn something new everyday
Great video, lots of good infro, I agree, people in the late 60s were putting big blocks in tri- five cars with little or no trouble, I have a 454 in my 57 and love it thanks.
Completely agree I prefer Chrysler but is hard to beat having gobs of room, cheap parts and my favorite part about Chevys is the universal bell housing. Right now summit has a set of 8 summit brand hyper 4.020 pistons on sale for $130
Chrysler had lackluster design, just straight up ugly vehicles compared to Ford and Chevy for that era. A Chrysler body looks like it was designed at gun point in a Soviet era gulag. You talk about durable engines, but I disagree. I think the Ford and Chevy had more advanced designs, all around. Chrysler's answer was to add more iron. Chrysler's were notorious for abysmal handling and braking. Chrysler made lots of bad decisions that had to engineered out by the aftermarket.
Totally disagree. Styling is purely a matter of opinion, but they had much better engines and transmissions than Ford or GM. And their handling was also superior unless you are talking about a hemi stuffed into a Dart with no sway bars. Torsion bars and leaf springs were much more stable and predictable than the mushy bouncy coils on the Fords and GMs. And the brakes were certainly no worse than Ford or GM.
Very interesting analogy of the evolution of the big 3 comparisons Unc.Although mopar starters always dominate!No shims needed.Great content UTG.Keep it flowing.
Hate to say it, being a Chevy guy myself, but I think Ford starters were far superior. That firewall solenoid was the best idea they ever had.
i have Never Shimmed a chevy starter ,out of hundreds not 1 shim ever
@@rctopfueler2841 Same for me but I have seen new starters come in a box with shims in them just in case.
Shim to 1/8 inch between bendix gear and flywheel